Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 4/24Posted October 6, 2026 On Regulations.gov
Scored directly — The comment's whole text was scored on its own.
Scorecard
Each dimension is scored 0–3; the eight sum to the substance score out of 24.
Specific placeNames a specific location — from a region down to an exact creek, trail, road, or map reference.
Local knowledgeDraws on a first-hand connection to the place — visits, sustained activity, occupation, or a professional role.
EA analysisEngages the agency's environmental analysis directly.
Analytical gapIdentifies something the analysis fails to address.
EvidenceBacks claims with specific facts, data, or research.
RequestMakes a specific, actionable request of the agency.
AlternativeProposes a different course of action.
LegalCites statutes, regulations, or legal obligations.
How hard it is to set aside
A0 none: Counted, not answered.
Still open to the agency
Alternative already eliminatedThe agency says it considered and eliminated the alternative the comment proposes, with a reason. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Already addressedThe agency says its analysis already covers the point. Defeated when the comment cites the law itself: there is no analysis to cite against a statutory claim.
Deferred to a later decisionThe agency says the point belongs to a later, site-specific decision. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Misreads the proposalThe agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
Not requiredThe agency says the analysis the comment asks for is not required. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Preference notedThe agency notes the comment as a statement of preference and takes no action on it. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
No cause and effect shownThe agency says the comment asserts a harm without showing how the action causes it. Defeated when the comment shows the mechanism.
Outside the scopeThe agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.
Certified not substantiveThe agency certifies the comment raises nothing substantive. Defeated when the comment alleges illegality, which is substantive by the definition the certification runs on.
I’m an aspiring wildlife biologist, and, as someone who has worked, camped and explored in the lands protected by the Roadless Rule, I urge you not to rescind the Roadless Rule. It is the fact that those lands have been untouched by roads that is one of the reasons they are so beautiful.
It’s the expanse of this beauty—the network of creeks and streams, the forests, grasslands, bogs where millions of things are alive, thriving, dying, and cycling—that is one of the things we as Americans can collectively be proud of. We share this land together as a country to protect, steward, and we have people from all walks of life who enjoy camping, fishing, and hunting in these protected lands.
I am young and I still have so much left of American land to see and explore. I want to see the enormous trees of the Sierra National Forest. I want to see the sun set over the rock formations of Shawnee National Forest.
What I don’t want to see is more rapid and easy to spread wildfires because the roads cutting through become places for wildfires to easily infiltrate into deep parts of a forest.
What I don’t want to see is more and more wildlife getting hit by cars and crushed by wheels only because they want to get to areas of their home range.
What I don’t want to see is more pollutants seeping into our soils and waterways. Or more floods when timber-harvested lands fail to retain water.
What I don’t want to see is forests taking up less CO2 because they’re fragmented and less efficient.
But these are what we may see if this rule gets rescinded. Our forests are already shrinking and burning due to wildfires and we would be putting these lands that we treasure at even more risk. Please support Alternative 1 (No Action).
Thank you,
Selena Cao